Namdrol wrote:Emptiness cannot be cognized directly. It has no characteristics, no shape, color, form, duration, etc.

only hinayanists have a problem with saying that negatives cant be cognized explicitly..but even they would say it can be cognized directly, where directly is taken to mean free of conceptuality ie. without conceptual consciousness, needing to rely on a mental image. do you understand what i mean by explicit vs implicit?

One cannot cognize that which lacks characteristics. It's impossible.

if by characteristics you mean shape, color, form, duration, etc, then its no problem to cognize it directly. for, just as empty space for example lacks all of these things and it can be cognized direcly without the use of a conceptual consciousness, so too can emptiness

well, actually, your error is the extent to which you are invested in trying to show someone up. irrespective of whether you 'win' or not, it's that investment that sentences you to suffering. (not trying to be rude, btw - just working my way through the thread sequentially.)

if by characteristics you mean shape, color, form, duration, etc, then its no problem to cognize it directly. for, just as empty space for example lacks all of these things and it can be cognized direcly without the use of a conceptual consciousness, so too can emptiness

What type of empty space are you referring, be specific. Do you mean the sky, do you mean the empty space in a box? Conditioned space and unconditioned space are different.

Namdrol wrote:What type of empty space are you referring, be specific. Do you mean the sky, do you mean the empty space in a box? Conditioned space and unconditioned space are different.

i mean the unconditioned mere absence of physical obstruction. i dont think anyone except vaibhashika accepts that as a functioning thing, but they dont know how to posit mental labelling so its only natural that they would say something like that

isn't the lack of characteristics a characteristic?I mean, if you say, "that which lacks characteristics" then you are creating a category.Everything has characteristics.If it doesn't have characteristics, or qualities, then there is no "it" to begin with.

So, we might say "the breeze" but really that is just a word we use to describe the movement of air. There is no "breeze" apart from air movement.We have words for a lot of things which are experiences and which have characteristics but don't have any reality to them as self-existing. I think, according to the Buddha, that includes just about everything.

So, I think things have characteristics even if they don't truly exist. But there is nothing which has no characteristics.the essential quality of "is" are characteristics.

Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth. Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.

Namdrol wrote:What type of empty space are you referring, be specific. Do you mean the sky, do you mean the empty space in a box? Conditioned space and unconditioned space are different.

i mean the unconditioned mere absence of physical obstruction. i dont think anyone except vaibhashika accepts that as a functioning thing, but they dont know how to posit mental labelling so its only natural that they would say something like that

Oh well, that type of space is merely a mental abstraction, it is unreal, no one sees it or perceives it since it lacks characteristics. So your thesis is rejected.

PadmaVonSamba wrote:isn't the lack of characteristics a characteristic?

Is a "lack of money" money?

Yes...it's money that you don't have! ...and sometimes it can be a huge amount.

Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth. Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.

Don't confuse "characteristics' with "defining characteristics".Since mind is infinite, it has no defining characteristics. Only "infining " characteristics.The nature of mind, it's characteristics (space & luminosity) are infinite, not finite.

(Define:de= "of"fine= "end"in other words, the end of something, it's boundaries of limitation)

Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth. Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.

(Define:de= "of"fine= "end"in other words, the end of something, it's boundaries of limitation)

Making up your own dharma language now?

ha ha. maybe. A long time ago it occurred to me that if there are terms "finite" ,"infinite", and "definite" then if there is "infinity" why not "definity" and if there is "defining" then why not "infining"?

My point was that a characteristic does not have to be something which defines something if that something is infinite.There are defining characteristics, so why not have characteristics which are not defining?

If space is infinite, then you can't define it, because infiniteness is its characteristic.So, you can experience mind, its infinite nature which has no defining characteristics but iyt can be experienced because it still has characteristics, one of which is that it cannot be defined.

Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth. Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.

Mahayanists sometimes get accused of misinterpreting paticcasamuppada (dependent origination). My experience has been that those making the accusations are often not aware of the Mahayana emphasis on sunyata.

But what is the relationship between sunyata and paticcasamuppada? Is understanding emptiness the same thing as understanding dependent origination? Or is sunyata broader in scope?

Looking at the Heart Sutra, sunyata would seem to be an all-encompassing term that includes anatta and dependent origination, while expanding the scope of these teachings to include all phenomena. Since the sutra applies sunyata to the twelve links, it would seem to transcend/supersede paticcasamuppada, as though the latter were just a manifestation. Both, though, arise out of the general principle:

when this is this comes to be, with the arising of this that arises

.

Your thoughts? Clarifications? Corrections?

Because all things are dependent origination, we cannot pin point any essence, it is empty (sunya). It is also because it is empty (sunya), nothing can be standstill and must depend on its surrounding (dependent origination).

THey are simply different way to say the same thing.

I am not here nor there.I am not right nor wrong.I do not exist neither non-exist.I am not I nor non-I.I am not in samsara nor nirvana.To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!

adinatha wrote:Re interconnectedness. This is also the case. In a sense, everything give rise to everything. The causal complex is so complex that it cannot be sorted out and discrete boundaries are not known.

Even causality itself is "empty"

With this knowledge engaging in action is paramita.

Not necessarily. Paramita depends heavily on motivation and inclusion of all iving beings in that motivation. Mere awareness of interconnectedness is a beginning for sure, but not a guarantee that one's actions become 'perfections'.